W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2000

RE: DOM-2 CSSValue Extensions and CSSValue.CSS_CUSTOM

From: Glenn Adams <gadams@vgi.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:54:32 -0500
To: "'Philippe Le Hegaret'" <plh@w3.org>, "'Bill dehOra'" <Wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>
Cc: <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000201bf9a81$c4c9ee50$2d020001@neo.vgi.com>

I also agree it isn't a good idea to specify these as additional valueTypes. My original comment was just to add clarifying language that when these interfaces are used that the CSSValue base instance should use CSS_CUSTOM.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-dom-request@w3.org [mailto:www-dom-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
Philippe Le Hegaret
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:44 PM
To: Bill dehOra
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Subject: Re: DOM-2 CSSValue Extensions and CSSValue.CSS_CUSTOM


Bill dehOra wrote:
> :"For this extension of the CSSValue interface, the valueType
> :attribute of the underlying CSSValue interface shall be CSS_CUSTOM."
> :
> :under the opening description of each of the following interfaces:
> :
> :CSS2Azimuth
> :CSS2BackgroundProperty
> :CSS2BorderSpacing
> :CSS2CounterReset
> :CSS2CounterIncrement
> :CSS2Cursor
> :CSS2PlayDuring
> :CSS2PageSize
> 
> Maybe they should get their own type codes altogether? 

What do you mean ? By suppressing the CSS_CUSTOM type and adding them into
valueType space ? Then we will have to reserve somes codes for CSS3, SVG ...
I don't think it's a good idea to go in this direction for the CSS properties.

Philippe.
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2000 14:54:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:47 GMT